intellectual property

DBratton:

ryanpatgray:

IP expires because we have a once size fits all system

I'm sorry. I don't know  what you mean.

Some confusion exists as to what intellectual property actually is. The reason for this is that it is entirely administered by governments. Of course governments will badly administer IP! They badly administer everything they put their hands on! In a true free market people would be more free to contract different licenses for their works. Some may choose to "work for hire" with the understanding that their work would be the property of the company they work for. Some may choose a contract that states that in 50 years after their death the work would become the property of their favorite charity (i.e. The LVMI). Some artists might recognize that they benefit from allowing some teenagers to post video of their concert on YouTube. Others might want to be more restrictive. Some artists might want to release everything they create under a GNU Free Documentation license (or a free market equivalent thereof). Right now, artists don't have the options of setting their own rules for intellectual property. They have to pick from those options offered them via government.

 

Our current patent system is favored toward big corrupt companies. Copyrights can be protected by contractual agreements such as shrink-wrapped licenses. Currently, in the US, shrink-wrapped licenses are allegedly not supported by courts.

If copyright laws were abolished, then they would be replaced with shrink-wrapped licenses. These shrink-wrapped licenses then must be enfoced by courts, not copyright protection agencies. Abolishing the copyright agencies would shift the burden to courts enforcing shrink-wrapped licenses. We currently have copyright protection agencies because copyright protection agencies are more efficient than courts because copyright protection agencies are more specialized.

In some forms of market anarchy, contractual enforcement is not guaranteed. So IP would not likely to exist in some forms of anarchy. However, voluntary states that internally respect copyright would arise. If an author or artist wants to make a living, then he has to move to a voluntary state that respects copyright. In order to avoid the free rider problem, the voluntary state forbids the showing of copyrighted material to some place outside the association. The voluntary state can sell copyrighted material to some entity outside of itself to make money. In order to make the business have an incentive to buy copyrighted material, the voluntary state have to sell the copyright material less than the temporary profit of a business using such copyright. However, the voluntary state's profit from selling is small. The voluntary state can also sell copyrighted material to other voluntary states that respects copyright.

Voluntary territorial monopolies in anarchy can provide technological innovation by using techniques such as copyright, patents, etc., and can figure out other forms of innovation, better than the state.

Writers and artists can theoretically make money in anarchy. But their profit is limited and temporary. Their can have profits until other competitors copied their work. Thus, it is (almost) impossible to make a living out of writing in anarchy.

Stranger:

One big empire with no internal monopoly on security and justice would be a governmentless society (pluriarchy).

According to Stranger's definition of anarchy, "voluntary territorial monopolies" that internally enforces copyright cannot exist. Perhaps "voluntary" with "monopoly" is an oxymoron.

Open source licenses are shrink wrap contracts. wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract They probably cannot enforced entirely in some places in anarchy, because copyright insurance companies would not have the incentive to threat violence for some minor copyright abuse. Therefore voluntary states that enforce contracts internally would arise. These voluntary states would make copyright treaties with other voluntary states.

Some may choose a contract that states that in 50 years after their death the work would become the property of their favorite charity (i.e. The LVMI)

This may not work in some forms of anarchy as described above.


However, voluntary states that internally enforce copyright might invent technology that would conquer the world.

I am a bit torn on this issue.

On the one hand, I like the model used by the website www.purepwnage.com.  They create webisodes and post them for free online.  They make their money by selling products associated with the show, like t-shirts and other accessories.  So they use the creative component to attract customers and make their money selling physical items.   There is no issue with IP laws.

One could expand this into other creative outlets.  I could see a future where musicians create their works and make them available for free, and make their money selling collector CDs, t-shirts, and performing live.  Digital photographers would make their money selling signed prints, or holding gallery showings, or doing custom work like portraits and event photography.

But my idea breaks down when you move into other avenues.  What about video game development?  If I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars creating a video game how do I get compensated?  In this case the creative component is not just the catch to draw in customers...it IS the final product.  Especially when you start talking about digital distribution.

Movies are another issue.  PurePwnage is great, but its production levels aren't exactly Sin City, or even Cloverfield.  If you remove IP protections do you spell the end of big-budget entertainment? 

 

Jonas:

But my idea breaks down when you move into other avenues.  What about video game development?  If I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars creating a video game how do I get compensated?  In this case the creative component is not just the catch to draw in customers...it IS the final product.  Especially when you start talking about digital distribution.

Movies are another issue.  PurePwnage is great, but its production levels aren't exactly Sin City, or even Cloverfield.  If you remove IP protections do you spell the end of big-budget entertainment? 

Some possibilities: release your game for free and charge for membership to an online community, charge for physical game memorabilia, charge for admittance to competitions or "game nights" or game expos, charge for advertising placed on the online community or physical game memorabilia or signs at game nights or expos, etc.

I don't know what PurePwnage is, but if its production levels are not great perhaps it simply does not have enough money or talent, yet (this is not meant as an insult). Suppose the first "product" of a person has OK quality but a lot of people like it for other reasons (humor, intellect, story, whatever); these people (and their friends, etc.) may be more likely to buy the person's next product with the expectation of more good humor/stories/etc., so more money would come in. With more money, perhaps the person could invest more into writing talent or special effects or whatever. Or suppose Joe is about to release his first movie, so we don't know about his reputation; maybe Jane, who already has a great reputation for high quality movies, endorses Joe's movie - now more people may pay to see it (and then Joe has more money for his next project, etc.). Or maybe Joe can attract investors, convincing them he can produce a great quality movie with their money and can earn them a profit with the sales of toys to McDonalds, or whatever.

Even with IP, today, there are big budget movies and tiny budget movies, and you find excellent quality and poor quality in both categories.

I don't think the lack of IP means necessarily that quality deteriorates or has an upper limit, or that it is the end of big-budget entertainment.

mike barskey:

 I don't think the lack of IP means necessarily that quality deteriorates or has an upper limit, or that it is the end of big-budget entertainment.

 

But big-budget entertainment usually means a large initial outlay of capital, in the hopes that the investment will be returned with at least the initial outlay and perhaps a profit on top of it.

I don't know...I have problems with a lot of this stuff that I'm trying to wrap my head around.  I read Kinsella's papers and I don't buy his arguements...mostly because on his site he is plugging software which, according to his ideas, I shouldn't need to pay for.  He also has tons of ads on his site.  According to his ideas he should have no problem with me putting up my own site, called StephanKinsella2.com, and make a complete copy of his existing content but just removing the ads.  People can then come to my site and get all the content without any of the ads. 

Usually the paradigm is that every person who copies a work from someone else is one person who has not paid the creator of that work.  If you buy my book, run it through a scanner, and then post that book online for everyone to get (which is fine according to Kinsella) then I am losing potential customers...people who would have bought my book if they didn't have access to it for free.

Now I have no problem with the idea of a creator not having control over their work once that work has been purchased by an end user...if I create a video game and you purchase that game, you should be able to install it on as many computers you like...make as many backup copies as you like...do whatever you want.  You own it...I shouldn't maintain partial ownership of it and restrict your use.  But I should be able to stop you from giving it...or even selling it...to other people.  They should have to buy it too, and then use it however they want. 

mike barskey:

Some possibilities: release your game for free and charge for membership to an online community, charge for physical game memorabilia, charge for admittance to competitions or "game nights" or game expos, charge for advertising placed on the online community or physical game memorabilia or signs at game nights or expos, etc.

 

 

 Those are good ideas, by the way...they fit right into my existing ideas for other kinds of digital products.  Thanks!

But again it all comes down to production values.  While a low-budget product might be able to fully compensate itself with those avenues, I don't know how a big-budget product could do it. 

Jonas:

Those are good ideas, by the way

Thanks!

Jonas:

But big-budget entertainment usually means a large initial outlay of capital, in the hopes that the investment will be returned with at least the initial outlay and perhaps a profit on top of it.

This is a tough one. Who knows how much initial capital will be necessary to create a "big budget" movie in a free market. Would the US dollar be worth what it was in 1912, and hence would making Titanic in 1912 (if the technology existed) cost $4 million instead of $100 million? In addition to the lack of inflation in a free market, the lack of licensing and the ability to trade freely will likely greatly affect the cost of everything (e.g., labor, equipment, services, products), so would the cost of a $4 million movie drop to $3 million? $2 million? less? Also, I'm not yet convinced that a great initial capital investment prohibits a thing from being done, even in the free market. If it takes way more money than I have in order to produce a "big budget" movie, I can have partners and we can each invest a portion, etc.

Jonas:

Now I have no problem with the idea of a creator not having control over their work once that work has been purchased by an end use...But I should be able to stop you from giving it...or even selling it...to other people.  They should have to buy it too, and then use it however they want. 

Does this mean that you wold "prohibit" gifts? How about bulk buying your book to distribute to your students or friends? Garage sales? Used book stores?

The sale of a good can be restricted in a way; e.g. selling a game on the condition that the person receiving it does not copy it. That would render copying the game by anyone involved in the contract into a violation of the contract. 

mike barskey:

Does this mean that you wold "prohibit" gifts? How about bulk buying your book to distribute to your students or friends? Garage sales? Used book stores?

 

In no way would it prohibit gifts, since as I said once a person purchases a product they can do whatever they want with it.  If Bob buys my book he can read it, and then sell it used at a garage sale.  Or give it to a friend.  Or burn it.  Same goes for bulk sales...if Teacher Bob wants to purchase 20 copies and give one to each of the 20 students in his class that is perfectly acceptable.

But this all expects existing copyright laws to be in effect.  If we followed Kinsella's ideals then Teacher Bob could purchase my book (or download a copy for free), make 20 copies, and give them to his students...or sell them to his students himself.  Is that okay?  I don't know...but if that is the paradigm that we are willing to follow for music and digital photography then I see no reason why we can exclude other media.

The sale of a good can be restricted in a way; e.g. selling a game on the condition that the person receiving it does not copy it. That would render copying the game by anyone involved in the contract into a violation of the contract.

That's not what Kinsella or many Libertarians would say.  They say that copyright and IP laws are wrong...so there can be no restrictions on copying and distributing music, movies, books, video games, photography...basically anything that does not have some physical existence.  I'm trying to determine if I believe that or not. 

Where do he say this? If he does, he's wrong.

Inquisitor:

Where do he say this? If he does, he's wrong.

 

The links are on page 2 of this thread.  Specifically, from his "In Defense of Napster" article he says:

"...copyrightable works should not be viewed as property, and copyrights should not be granted."

and...

"...property rights in ideas are not justified..."

I'm just trying to figure out that if we say that music, digital photography, movies, and other forms of intangible "stuff" are not property and can be copied/traded freely and without restriction, how do we rationalize not applying that same philosophy to things like online books, video games, news outlets, chemical substances (drugs), etc. 

Ah, I see. That doesn't preclude contractually limiting what one may do with what they buy though. It's against IP laws as they currently exist.

Jonas:

The sale of a good can be restricted in a way; e.g. selling a game on the condition that the person receiving it does not copy it. That would render copying the game by anyone involved in the contract into a violation of the contract.

That's not what Kinsella or many Libertarians would say.  They say that copyright and IP laws are wrong...

IP law is not contract law though. Violation of a voluntary contract is and should be actionable in a civil court. But IP law both criminalizes IP infringement and creates predetermined legal terms between IP traders - terms which can then be used in civil court even though not negotiated and explicitly agreed to.

 They have a problem with the whole IDEA of a copyright, though...not just an issue with current IP law.  They disagree that intangible things such as ideas should create a monopoly that imposes restrictions on how a third-party can use their own property.

So is the general feeling in this thread that intangible items such as music, movies, or any digital media should not be protected by any federal laws, but can be protected via contracts agreed upon between a "creator" and a "purchaser"? 

 Of course, as Kinsella points out, this contract would only be binding between the creator and the purchaser.  There is nothing stopping the purchaser from lending/giving the book/CD/DVD/video game/newspaper to a friend who can then make all the copies they want...since the friend has no existing contractual obligation with the creator to not do these things.

So, in effect, you might as well allow free distribution of all these things since contacts in no way prevent the free distribution of intangible media to the public. 

Jonas:

Of course, as Kinsella points out, this contract would only be binding between the creator and the purchaser. There is nothing stopping the purchaser from lending/giving the book/CD/DVD/video game/newspaper to a friend who can then make all the copies they want

I may have missed something, but couldn't the contract (between the creator and the purchaser) stipulate whether the purchaser could lend/give the book to anyone else?

mike barskey:

I may have missed something, but couldn't the contract (between the creator and the purchaser) stipulate whether the purchaser could lend/give the book to anyone else?

 

I don't think so...once you purchase something you own it.  If the contract contained such a clause it would give the creator rights over your property...something which libertarianism strictly denounces.  Also, I doubt anyone would ever agree to such a contract.

In addition, as Kinsella points out in "Against Intellectual Property", there is nothing stopping the friend from simply learning about the idea.  So let's say for giggles that the creator writes a book about Hobbits and a ring or something. The purchaser buys the book (either in physical or digital format) and agrees to a contract stating that they will not give nor lend it to any other person...ever.  There is nothing stopping the purchaser from dictating the story to a friend, who then types it down and sells it as their own work.  So will the contract state that you cannot read the book aloud?  What if the purchaser just talked about the book to the friend?  While the friend couldn't make an exact copy, they could come up with a reasonable facsimile.

There is also no way for the creator to enforce the contract.  What if the creator starts to see copies of the book being distributed online.  Which purchaser broke the contract?  Even if you find them, what's to stop the purchaser from simply saying they lost the book on the bus and someone else (who would not be contractually bound to the creator) found it and copied it?

I think contracts are best left for handling the physical representation of the media (a hardcover book, a limited-edition signed DVD, etc) and not the intangible media or ideas themselves. 

Jonas:

I don't think so...once you purchase something you own it.

Like I said, eliminating copyright would simply shift the burden from copyright agencies to courts.

Your statement is contradictiory. You can "rent" some commidity, but not own it. For example, you can "rent" an employee but you can not impose some actions to him that contracts the contract.

If you "rent" property but cannot impose some actions that contract your contract. Humans are property too. If you agree to rent a book the contractor is allowed to restrict distribution.

If you "rent" a human you are not allowed to cut him open (if denied by the agreement). If you "rent" a television you are not allowed to deassemble it (if specified by a contract). If you "rent" a human you are not allowed to deassemble her artificial limb or artificial organ. Deassembling the television is intrusion of the owner's property. Therefore there is no distinction between humans, constraints, property and intellectual property.

Jonas:

There is also no way for the creator to enforce the contract.

These kind of contracts you said are already widespread and are enforced by courts.

Hi Austrian folks,

I've been trying to follow this thread, quite "heavy" with legal stuff, philosophical debate and so on, but until now I wasn't able to make it clear enough to myself.

If, for instance, according to the libertarian perspective, ideas/ thoughts/ intangibles are not scarce - thus cannot be "owned" - and copying something creates no damage to the first guy who had the idea and published it, then using the same logical principle, I would produce the following "pearl":

- Academic knowledge and good grades are not "scarce", and copying from my "nerd" colleague doesn't reduce his grade, THUS, I'm entitled to copy from him during the exams and, as a reward to my enterpreneurship and successful marketing techniques I would be able to beat him, say, on a selection process for an opportunity to work as an assistant to the professor.

The above line of reasoning could be extended to all business areas, so the corollary to the application of the principle that ideas are not classified as "property" and that no contract is enforceable to protect the undesired use of one's original ideas would lead to the extinction of professional ethics and other devastating consequences for the economy.

Is this consistent ????

 

Halevy:

The above line of reasoning could be extended to all business areas, so the corollary to the application of the principle that ideas are not classified as "property" and that no contract is enforceable to protect the undesired use of one's original ideas would lead to the extinction of professional ethics and other devastating consequences for the economy.

This is not consistent. I can think of a counterexample:

Ideas are enforceable. Let's say that you wanted to buy a newly invented airplane that has an advantage. But the builder of that airplace said that once you deassemble the airplane, its internal atomic bomb would automatically blow up the airplane and everything surrounding it. Therefore, you cannot steal the internal designs of that airplane because atomic bombs would vaporize you after you deassemble it.

Jonas:

I don't think so...once you purchase something you own it.  If the contract contained such a clause it would give the creator rights over your property...something which libertarianism strictly denounces.

These are interesting ideas. I think you're right that if you agree to stipulations for ownership, then you don't truly own the thing, or you own it conditionally. But we're not talking about all ownership, all property; we're only referring to IP (actually, to any contract-based ownership). I don't see a problem with conditional ownership if I agree to it before making the trade. For example, if I know that the creator of a digital book (i.e., no physical property, just 1s and 0s, no scarcity) has the stipulation that any buyers must not share a copy of the file with anyone, and I still agree to buy the digital book, then I have voluntarily decided to "own" that property with stipulations (and the stipulations are that essentially the creator of the book has partial control over what can be done with "my" property). So I agree with you, but I don't think it's bad or wrong. This might be what Libertarian means by "renting" people and things. I don't really get his post. inquisitor, can you please explain?

Jonas:

Also, I doubt anyone would ever agree to such a contract.

I don't agree. People agree to such contracts all the time now, and I think they would continue to do so. When you buy almost any software, the EULA has significant stipulations about it's use, yet millions of software packages are sold. When you buy a car, a third party (the government) tells you what you can and cannot do with it (e.g., can't drive certain ways, can't modify car certain ways).

Jonas:

In addition, as Kinsella points out in "Against Intellectual Property", there is nothing stopping the friend from simply learning about the idea.  So let's say for giggles that the creator writes a book about Hobbits and a ring or something. The purchaser buys the book (either in physical or digital format) and agrees to a contract stating that they will not give nor lend it to any other person...ever.  There is nothing stopping the purchaser from dictating the story to a friend, who then types it down and sells it as their own work.  So will the contract state that you cannot read the book aloud?  What if the purchaser just talked about the book to the friend?  While the friend couldn't make an exact copy, they could come up with a reasonable facsimile.

There is also no way for the creator to enforce the contract.  What if the creator starts to see copies of the book being distributed online.  Which purchaser broke the contract?  Even if you find them, what's to stop the purchaser from simply saying they lost the book on the bus and someone else (who would not be contractually bound to the creator) found it and copied it?

I think this is true, too. While some scenarios might allow you to stop other from learning the knowledge, and some scenarios might be enforceable, I think the vast majority of scenarios might make this troublesome or impossible. But should a type of transaction not exist in a free market because it's difficult to enforce? I think, in a free society, the seller and buyer should decide if they want to trade with such an agreement that is difficult to enforce, if they want to.

Jonas:

I think contracts are best left for handling the physical representation of the media (a hardcover book, a limited-edition signed DVD, etc) and not the intangible media or ideas themselves.

I understand the difference between the tangible and intangible, but can you describe why a contractual agreement should differ from one to the other?

Libertarian,

I appreciate your effort to make things clear for me, your counterexample is indeed one kind of protective measure against the misuse of one's ideas, however from the economical viewpoint, the introduction of these devices would generate an undesirable cost increase to products in general, without adding value to their main functions, and also bring unnecessary complexity to the industry.

My main concern is still regarding the ethical issues involved in the concept that "ideas belong to nobody", as the non-IP line states.

If only physical objects are subject to the concepts of property, economic survival within a non-IP libertarian environment would be largely concentrated on the manufacture and commercializing of goods, as most business areas associated with knowledge, creation, research and everything else would be subject to be copied at low cost by third parties who invested nothing in the development of the original ideas until they can be launched as new product into the market (e.g.: new, research-intensive drugs x generics manufacture).

Do you get the point?

 

Mike Barsey,

"I don't see a problem with conditional ownership if I agree to it before making the trade. For example, if I know that the creator of a digital book (i.e., no physical property, just 1s and 0s, no scarcity) has the stipulation that any buyers must not share a copy of the file with anyone, and I still agree to buy the digital book, then I have voluntarily decided to "own" that property with stipulations".

IMO, if the creator has no "property" right to his own creation, even less would have the purchaser of said creation, thus, the digital book in question is the property of *nobody" and consequently is a "public" good [argh!], so that, at the end of this debate, all human creation is *collective*??

I'm beginning to get scared to think in which direction this line of thought would lead us...

Clarification, please!!!

 

I appreciate your effort to make things clear for me, your counterexample is indeed one kind of protective measure against the misuse of one's ideas, however from the economical viewpoint, the introduction of these devices would generate an undesirable cost increase to products in general, without adding value to their main functions, and also bring unnecessary complexity to the industry.

How about a contract that requires a private security guard to be occupied with that airplane to protect that airplane from de-assemblation? The private security guard can weapons more efficiently to prevent deassemblation. How about using cheaper weapons?

The airplane may be considerd so valuable by some people that it may worth the cost of including a weapon to self-defend it. If an airliner company can make travel just a little cheaper, it would be a huge gain for the airliner company.

Also, software is effectively protected by trade secrets. It is almost impossible to reverse engineer protected software.

Halevy:

IMO, if the creator has no "property" right to his own creation, even less would have the purchaser of said creation, thus, the digital book in question is the property of *nobody" and consequently is a "public" good [argh!], so that, at the end of this debate, all human creation is *collective*??

The digital books can be protected: They can be encrypted, and each book downloaded requires a different serial number to unencrypt the book to read. Each user that wants to read the book must pay to receive a unique key to unlock the book. The serial code is then validated online or via telephone, so subsequent unlocks using the same key would be prohibited. Also, the text in the book is stored in a human-like font as images, only showing a few sentences at a time. It would be hard to use optical character recognition to transform the text. Also, to make it hard to record and compress a video of its text, the text wobbles around 60 frames per second, but just enough for a human to perceive. The text automatically scrolls so you must need to type 300 words per minute to copy the book. The operating system is protected by trade secrets, so it is impossible to copy the book by copying the whole filesystem (if you are allowed to, but the OS prohibits you)...

Halevy:

IMO, if the creator has no "property" right to his own creation, even less would have the purchaser of said creation, thus, the digital book in question is the property of *nobody" and consequently is a "public" good [argh!], so that, at the end of this debate, all human creation is *collective*??

I'm not sure I follow you, here. Why wouldn't the creator have property rights to his own creation (before he sold it)? If we're talking about knowledge (e.g., a song but not a CD, the words that make up a book but not the paper) and IP does not exist, then the creator doesn't own it and hence the buyer can't own it. But they could enter into an agreement, like: "I, the creator of this idea for a book, will tell you, the printer, the idea if you promise to print it for me and never print it for nor tell anyone else." This is a contractual obligation regarding IP yet where no property is exchanging hands (well, property would likely trade hands as the printer would charge for his services, but the point is that this agreement is regarding the exchange of knowledge only, no physical property).

I think knowledge is a public good, or a natural resource. If you know something, or create an idea, it is yours so long as you can control it. As soon as you tell one other person or put your idea to the physical world (write it down, make a model, etc.) then it could also be intentionally, accidentally, or maliciously discovered by someone else, and you cannot control what someone else knows or does with their knowledge. And of course, knowledge is not scarce. If I have a secret and I tell 1 or 1,000,000 other people, I still have the knowledge; it would no longer be a secret, but that was my choice.

What I'm referring to is IP: knowledge. The scarcity of property, which is physical, means different rules regarding ownership; i.e., it can be owned. The creator owns his creation, and can choose to transfer ownership to a buyer. I think the trade of property can also have stipulations if voluntarily agreed upon. The difference is that with IP, contractual obligations are the only thing being agreed upon (the buyer agrees to behave in certain ways regarding knowledge), but with property a contractual obligation dictates rules for you you use the property (the buyer agrees to behave in certain ways and owns the property).

So I guess I'm saying that the idea of contractual stipulations are optional, and must not necessarily be extended to all property, hence all human creation is not collective

I'm mainly thinking "out loud" here, trying to figure this out. I'm not saying "this is how it is." I appreciate everyone's participation in this discussion.

I am not thinking "out loud". To be consistent, one must have the freedom to enforce contractual restrictions on ideas.

In practice, anarchy and minarchy is incompatable with contractualism.

libertarian:

To be consistent, one must have the freedom to enforce contractual restrictions on ideas.

I agree completely.

libertarian:

In practice, anarchy and minarchy is incompatable with contractualism.

How is anarchy incompatible with contractualism?

I don't think so...once you purchase something you own it.  If the contract contained such a clause it would give the creator rights over your property...something which libertarianism strictly denounces.  Also, I doubt anyone would ever agree to such a contract.

Not if the purchase was made on the condition that you waive your right to copy it. Whether anyone would agree to such a contract is guesswork at best, but there is no a priori presumption against such a contract.

Halevy, why would anyone tolerate the drop in standards you mention? An academic institution, for instance, might make it conditional to enter its property that you do not cheat. If you do you are expelled. Problem solved. 

Mike, I am not sure what Libertarian has in mind, but in effect when you sell your labour you are, in a way, renting that service out, the wage being the stipulated price for the service or the product thereof. I suppose Libertarian sees it as purchasing part of you? He's better qualified to answer that than I am. 

Let me see if I can sum up some of what I am thinking...

I have no problem with two people agreeing upon an IP contract, and I agree that contracts should protect intangible as well as tangible things.  As long as we realize the limits that these contracts would have on parties other than the two involved.  If a contract will not prevent the spread of IP then what is the point?

As for why people would create IP if they cannot profit from their ideas, I talked about that in the first couple of pages.  There are several examples already in the market where groups have created media and distributed it for free...and then make a profit by selling tangible items based on that IP.  You can check out www.purepwnage.com or www.tikibartv.com as two examples...these are groups that create media (albiet of a low-production value) that is (IMHO) quite entertaining.  They make all their money selling t-shirts, cups, and other swag.  This would be the new entertainment economic paradigm that would exist in a place with no IP laws.

As for other types of IP such as patents you have other options available.  Let's say I come up with an idea for a new kind of motor.  That idea is a "trade secret" and it has no value.  I don't even own it...since you can't own ideas.  But as long as I keep it secret then nobody else can have it.  I now have two options:

1) I can scrounge up enough money to start building my own motor and go into business for myself.  I would build a prototype motor and, if it works as I expect, I could show it to a few select potential investors.  They are all, of course, required to sign detailed non-disclosure contracts.  Existing non-disclosure contracts work very well and I see no reason why they would not continue to do so.  Eventually I can build enough motors and start selling them.

2) I can simply sell my motor idea to an existing motor manufacturing company.  They already have the infrastructure in place to produce my motor, and I can get fair compensation for my idea.  This could be a single up-front price, a price based on how many motors they sell...it depends on the terms of the contract that we both can agree upon.

Of course, once the motor gets out into the marketplace there will be people who reverse engineer it to discover its secrets.  They can even start selling their own version.  But my company...or the company I sell my idea to...would have a head start and would also have the reputation as the initial inventor.  I could even see a governmental office, like the existing patent system, where initial inventors get to register.  They don't get any protection of their ideas...but there is a public record of who came up with the idea first and who is simply copying.  People tend to have a strong dislike for groups that simply copy their products from someone else...the media world is full of them.  Sheesh...the public finds out you lip-sync a little on stage and next thing you know you can't give your music away!  ;)

I don't think that IP laws are required for innovation to exist...I think that contract law would work just fine.  I think it would even boost creativity...you would have people creating entertainment because they want to, or because they have something they want to share.  Sure, you wouldn't have "American Idol" but, come on...after the Miami auditions do you really care?  ;)

Inquisitor, thanks for explaining "renting." Jonas, nice summary. You're examples show how the lack of IP would not harm trade, ownership, or market value of products and services. And you even reiterate that you can't own ideas.

mike barskey:

examples show how the lack of IP would not harm trade,

Intellectual property hurts more than it helps.

Patents create a monopoly company who would dominate the market because of efficiency advantages. They would raise the price very high. They would then threat predatory prices to any new competitor.

Patents create monopolies using a positive feedback cycle. The patent monopoly would gain profit, and would then use that profit to invest even more on R&D and them patent them. Then they would profit from those patnets and invest in the additional profits to create even more profit. Standard Oil was much more innovative than other forms because of this positive-feedback cycle. Therefore, don't defend Standard Oil because they are innovative. It would be more efficient if a bunch of competitors innovate than one innovate.

Additionally, whenever a competitor oil company arises, Standard Oil would use predatory prices (yes they work in such cases, since patent monopolies would always have a asymptotic advantage).

I don't believe this thread would get anywhere when do not entirely agree on a single collection of definitions and axioms. Axioms can only be supported morally, not logically. Axioms are emotional. We cannot agree on a single axiomatic system because qualia is a subjective phoenomenon.

Investment is to theorems as consumption is to axioms. Theorems are rational and axioms are irrational. Similarly, investment is requires rational mind and consumption requires the hedonistic irrational mind. Our irrationality drives rationality and consumption drives investment.

Anarchists work on abstractions, and then use a prior reasoning to deduce laws that are consistent within their abstraction. But in the real world, not everything can be implemented without some contradictions to their abstraction. For example, contractualism cannot be effectively implemented in the real world because children do not have the rational ability to consent. We thus invent axioms that is most closely consistent to their abstraction. (such as homesteading, dependency arguments and property arguments for children)

Abstractions always have faults, as they do not entirely formalize all the properties of our world, but anarchists should use their abstraction as a guide. Too much axioms would be too convoluted.

Another example, trade secrets sometimes would and sometimes would not work, depending on your axiomatic system. If all of our knowledge is transparent (such as some MMORPG games) then it is impossible to enforce ideas, since everyone can see everyone's messages. In the simulation, there are no physical and geographical boundaries (such as walls, buildings, air, space) that blocks transportation and you seeing their ideas.

There is no such thing as rational, all are perceptual. All of these ideas are well-thought out and not formed from "out loud" thinking. IMO, thinking "out loud" slows down innovation. The reason I post here is that I am addicted to Austrian Forums.

I found this interesting. One record label has a very different approach to IP. One record label WANTS you give 3 copies of their music to friends.

http://magnatune.com/info/give

If they can profit from this, it may catch on.

Well this isn't the huge leap that you might think.  I don't think any major record label would "come after you" for giving 3 copies of a song to friends.  The RIAA has been going after people who make large amounts of music available to download or people who download massive quantities of material.

 Magnatune still makes you pay for the media, and their licensing fees are pretty hefty.  I generated a quick licensing quote (video game usage, 50,000 copies, entire song used in advertising) and it ran up to $3000!!!!

  

Jonas:

As for why people would create IP if they cannot profit from their ideas, I talked about that in the first couple of pages.  There are several examples already in the market where groups have created media and distributed it for free...and then make a profit by selling tangible items based on that IP.  You can check out www.purepwnage.com or www.tikibartv.com as two examples...these are groups that create media (albiet of a low-production value) that is (IMHO) quite entertaining.  They make all their money selling t-shirts, cups, and other swag.  This would be the new entertainment economic paradigm that would exist in a place with no IP laws.

This is a business model that works based on using the IP as a hook to sell the tangible products. By making the IP free they cast a wider net to sell their tshirts. However with something like music this becomes more difficult. Musicians make a sizable chunk of their money from CD and MP3 sales. Also the recording studio people are paid because of CD sales.

Jonas:

Of course, once the motor gets out into the marketplace there will be people who reverse engineer it to discover its secrets.  They can even start selling their own version.

A monopoly could be maintained if the manufacturer sold the engines with a contractual stipulation that the buyer does not have a right to reverse engineer the engine and that if they sell it the new owner is subject to the same rules. A plate could be stamped on the engine stating the rules and if the engine is stolen and reverse engineered then whoever comes on to the market will be linked with the theft.

My biggest hang up on the issue is pharmaceutical patents. Let's assume away the FDA for a moment (and reduce barriers to entry in doing so). If a pharmaceutical company can invest $100 million and find a cure for AIDs, how are they to get that $100 million back if they have to compete with generics with no research expenses? Contractually binding buyers from reverse engineering and competing is certainly one way, but then the company has an unlimited monopoly. The current 20 year patent seems to promote innovation while still allowing for delayed competition. Is the current method ideal? How do we decide what method would maximize utility?

RickWeber:

If a pharmaceutical company can invest $100 million and find a cure for AIDs, how are they to get that $100 million back if they have to compete with generics with no research expenses?

Do you think that the reputation as the company that cured AIDS has no market value? Or, to abstract the principle, do you think reputation has no market value (e.g., a company could be known for innovation, or charitable donations, or community involvement, or quality products, etc., and thus have a reputation of being better than the cheap knock-offs). In fact, this occurs today.

Not to mention that we'd probably see completely different models emerge for research and development.  Perhaps you would see pharma manufacturers collectively invest, that they may have that new product to sell as an industry.

Wealthy donors seeking to prolong or save their own lives, insurance companies, etc.

I always look at Linux, how it has developed and spread.

 

RickWeber:

This is a business model that works based on using the IP as a hook to sell the tangible products. By making the IP free they cast a wider net to sell their tshirts. However with something like music this becomes more difficult. Musicians make a sizable chunk of their money from CD and MP3 sales. Also the recording studio people are paid because of CD sales.

They learned how to bring their ideas to market. Musicians get most of their money from sales of band merchandise at their shows. Record companies are the first to complain because they used to have a stranglehold on anything new in the industry. How did Amazon become the second largest online distributor of music when all they offer no DRM like iTunes who managed to overtake Wal-Mart soon after making music DRM-free. I thought there would be no more than one sale of every song since we're all petty thieves? Companies need to learn how to market the convenience and experience to the consumer.

RickWeber:

A monopoly could be maintained if the manufacturer sold the engines with a contractual stipulation that the buyer does not have a right to reverse engineer the engine and that if they sell it the new owner is subject to the same rules. A plate could be stamped on the engine stating the rules and if the engine is stolen and reverse engineered then whoever comes on to the market will be linked with the theft.

My biggest hang up on the issue is pharmaceutical patents. Let's assume away the FDA for a moment (and reduce barriers to entry in doing so). If a pharmaceutical company can invest $100 million and find a cure for AIDs, how are they to get that $100 million back if they have to compete with generics with no research expenses? Contractually binding buyers from reverse engineering and competing is certainly one way, but then the company has an unlimited monopoly. The current 20 year patent seems to promote innovation while still allowing for delayed competition. Is the current method ideal? How do we decide what method would maximize utility?

Sure, they could put a reverse engineer clause but I don't see how they could prove that in court.

There are foundations that pay the costs of the research and development for cures.

 

I'm sure my view of this will be unpopular (as usual)...

The concept of an "owner" is simply defined by who is allowed to decide what happens to an object or resource, acknowledging that only one person at a time can have that power without a prior agreement.

Looking at it that way, intellectual "property" makes no sense.

A monopoly could be maintained if the manufacturer sold the engines with a contractual stipulation that the buyer does not have a right to reverse engineer the engine and that if they sell it the new owner is subject to the same rules.

But don't forget what was talked about before...a contract preventing reverse engineering is only binding to the two parties involved.  It does not prevent a third-party from reverse engineering the product.  This breaks all monopoly protections.

If I purchase an engine from you, with a contractual agreement stating that I will not take it apart and examine it, there is nothing stopping me from handing that engine to a friend of mine and having HIM reverse engineer it.  My friend never agreed to the contract.

Musicians make a sizable chunk of their money from CD and MP3 sales.

Someone else beat me to it.  Small bands make most of their money by selling merchandise.  In fact, many small bands just give away CDs at clubs...to drum up market share and "spread the word".

Big-time artists make most of their money through concert ticket sales as well as merchandise.  Both of those would not be touched at all if there was a complete lack of IP laws.

Also the recording studio people are paid because of CD sales.

Actually the recording studio people are paid by the band (or manager if they are big enough)...the band recoups these costs through sales of merchandise and ticket sales.